Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jul '09 01:28 / 1 edit
    Inspired by the bull fighting thread.

    PETA and other groups that advocate veganism point to 5 principal arguments:

    1) Animal rights; i.e., we have no right to kill animals for food

    2) Human food sources; i.e., eating animals drains the Earth's food resources faster than eating grains and fruits

    3) Animal suffering; i.e., the meat manufacturing process causes animal suffering

    4) Environmental issues (cow flatulation as a greenhouse gas, meat factory emissions, etc)

    5) Health; i.e., that grains and fruits are more healthy (or really, less unhealthy) than meats and other animal products


    Which of these do you think are legit arguments, if any? I have my opinions, of course, but I'll start by throwing out the question.
  2. 27 Jul '09 01:52
    Originally posted by sh76
    Inspired by the bull fighting thread.

    PETA and other groups that advocate veganism point to 5 principal arguments:

    1) Animal rights; i.e., we have no right to kill animals for food

    2) Human food sources; i.e., eating animals drains the Earth's food resources faster than eating grains and fruits

    3) Animal suffering; i.e., the meat manufacturing proce ...[text shortened]... arguments, if any? I have my opinions, of course, but I'll start by throwing out the question.
    http://www.baxterblack.com/poems/vegetarians%20nightmare.pdf
  3. 27 Jul '09 02:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76

    4) Environmental issues (cow flatulation as a greenhouse gas, meat factory emissions, etc)
    But I would thnk that less cows running around passing gas would equal fewer greenhouse emissions so killing them off would be a good thing? Oh well, guess that shows how much I know.
  4. 27 Jul '09 02:48
    PETA and other groups that advocate veganism point to 5 principal arguments:

    1) Animal rights; i.e., we have no right to kill animals for food

    then why do we have the right to kill embryos/fetuses PETA has never defended an unborn child

    2) Human food sources; i.e., eating animals drains the Earth's food resources faster than eating grains and fruits

    Whre's the scientific evidence to prove their point?

    3) Animal suffering; i.e., the meat manufacturing process causes animal suffering
    see#1

    4) Environmental issues (cow flatulation as a greenhouse gas, meat factory emissions, etc)

    Cow flatulence is caused by their vegan diet full of carbs. Vegans cause more flatulence than omnivore humans. Perhaps they should be force fed meat to stop/reduce their flatulence

    5) Health; i.e., that grains and fruits are more healthy (or really, less unhealthy) than meats and other animal products
    Grass fed beef is healthier than grain fed beef. You cannot get quality protein from a completely vegan diet
  5. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    27 Jul '09 03:07
    The strongest argument in favour of veganism is that it will kill off the idiots who partake in it much faster than if they were to eat a balanced diet.

    The faster we improve the gene pool, the better.
  6. 27 Jul '09 03:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by uzless
    The strongest argument in favour of veganism is that it will kill off the idiots who partake in it much faster than if they were to eat a balanced diet.

    The faster we improve the gene pool, the better.
    I vote for that. Need to visit the favorite cut of beef in the culture forum. uzless, you are a genius!
  7. 27 Jul '09 03:26
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    I vote for that. Need to visit the favorite cut of steak in the culture forum. uzless, you are a genius!
    How about a soylent green type of healthcare system?
  8. 27 Jul '09 03:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    How about a soylent green type of healthcare system?
    Another genius! I love soylent green! Where will it all end? Are you in the Obama cabinet?
  9. 27 Jul '09 03:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    1) Animal rights; i.e., we have no right to kill animals for food
    For the secularist, this is problematic because humans to them are nothing but a glorified animal. How can one then justify killing something that is not really any better than yourself? However, those of faith recognize a significant differnce between the two. Of course, this does not mean they advocate mistreating animals.

    I think those on the far left are for the most part secularists and there is a reason for that as I have just given evidence for. Another issue is abortion. For the left winger, life is not sacred since we are merely glorified animals. To them, we should be herded around like cattle as we see socialist attempt daily and we should curb and control the population as much as possible since large numbers of humans are problematic. After all, each human leaves a carbon foot print. In fact, I heard of a left winger nut case who had an abortion for the sole reason that she did not want to contribute any more to global warming. This is why they condone abortion. You simply can't hear the baby scream as you snuff it out so wheres the harm?

    My only question is, would a member of PETA protest aborting animals? On the one hand they all support human abortions but on the other hand are obssessed with animal rights. If nothing else it would be entertaining to watch.
  10. 27 Jul '09 03:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    For the secularist, this is problematic because humans to them are nothing but a glorified animal. How can one then justify killing something that is not really any better than yourself? However, those of faith recognize a significant differnce between the two. Of course, this does not mean they advocate mistreating animals.
    No one advocates wanton cruelty of any kind towards humans or animals. Indeed there is a difference between killing for food and killing for pleasure. However, if humans area glorified animal the PETA should be horrified by abortion.
  11. 27 Jul '09 03:48
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Another genius! I love soylent green! Where will it all end? Are you in the Obama cabinet?
    I'm not in Obamas cabinet yet but that will be a good stepping stone to his plate.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jul '09 12:59
    Originally posted by whodey
    But I would thnk that less cows running around passing gas would equal fewer greenhouse emissions so killing them off would be a good thing? Oh well, guess that shows how much I know.
    The idea is that they are raised for beef and thus pass the gas while alive. Otherwise, they would never exist at all.

    I saw the favorite cut of beef on the culture board. The first thing I thought of was whether any PETA reps are following this board.
  13. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    27 Jul '09 13:28
    Originally posted by sh76
    Inspired by the bull fighting thread.

    PETA and other groups that advocate veganism point to 5 principal arguments:

    1) Animal rights; i.e., we have no right to kill animals for food

    2) Human food sources; i.e., eating animals drains the Earth's food resources faster than eating grains and fruits

    3) Animal suffering; i.e., the meat manufacturing proce ...[text shortened]... arguments, if any? I have my opinions, of course, but I'll start by throwing out the question.
    No. 2 is by far the strongest argument. It is far more inefficient to have an animal based diet. Instead of feeding grain to cattle which we then eat, we could feed far more people just by eating the grain ourselves.

    Although I agree that we should reduce our consumption of meat, I see no reason to eliminate it.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Jul '09 13:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    No. 2 is by far the strongest argument. It is far more inefficient to have an animal based diet. Instead of feeding grain to cattle which we then eat, we could feed far more people just by eating the grain ourselves.

    Although I agree that we should reduce our consumption of meat, I see no reason to eliminate it.
    I agree. I think #2 is a legitimate beef.*

    #3 is a reason for regulation and the others are reasons based on personal choice only. #2 is the kind of argument that might justify policy discussions.












    * Who am I kidding? Pun intended.
  15. 27 Jul '09 14:09
    Originally posted by whodey
    For the secularist, this is problematic because humans to them are nothing but a glorified animal.
    What's secularism got to do with a man's view on human kind, or it's food source?